[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 39 (Wednesday, April 13, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
THE TERM LIMIT MOVEMENT AND CONGRESSIONAL CHANGE
______
HON. LEE H. HAMILTON
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, April 13, 1994
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington
Report for Wednesday, April 6, 1994 into the Congressional Record:
In recent years public confidence in the performance of
government has been undermined because of various scandals
and a lack of progress on the budget deficit and other
pressing national problems. This public frustration has
fueled the movement to limit the terms of legislators at the
state and national level. Starting with Colorado in 1990,
voters began to approve state initiatives to impose term
limits on Members of the U.S. Congress. The movement picked
up steam in 1992 when voters in each of the 14 states with
congressional term limits on the ballot approved them, often
by overwhelming margins.
The Constitutional Debate: The 1992 victories spurred on
both proponents and opponents of term limits for Members of
Congress. Opponents immediately launched constitutional
challenges in court. They argue that the Constitution
specifies only three qualifications (age, citizenship, and
state residency) for becoming a Member of Congress, thus
prohibiting states from imposing other qualifications on
candidates. Opponents believe that the only way to impose
term limits would be through a constitutional amendment
rather than through state law.
Proponents of term limits, on the other hand, believe that
states can impose such limits, citing the Constitution's
provisions allowing states to regulate the ``times, places,
and manner'' of elections. Many such state regulations, which
can have the effect of imposing qualifications on candidates,
have been upheld by court rulings.
Thus far, the opponents of term limits have won the major
court battles. Term limits in Arkansas and Washington state
have been ruled unconstitutional, in separate cases by the
Arkansas Supreme Court and a federal court. It is likely that
one of the challenges will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Indeed, the constitutional issues are gray, and a Court
ruling would be helpful. The worst result would be to have a
patchwork of state restrictions, with some states limiting
terms and others not. Power in Congress, which is tied to
seniority, would then be completely skewed.
Arguments Against Term Limits: In my view, regardless of
the constitutional arguments, the risks of term limits
outweigh the possible benefits. Mandatory turnover in
congressional membership will do little to resolve the real
problems the country faces, and may in fact compound them by
undermining democratic choice and the representative process.
Dissatisfaction with a Congress that has not always
performed satisfactorily does not justify removing all
Members of Congress, the good as well as the bad, after a
certain number of years. Not does it justify denying the
people their choice of representative. This republic has been
well served since its birth by the belief that accountability
in elected officials should be enforced by voters through the
requirement of frequent elections. Many of our most revered
and respected politicians served for many years. Why should
voters be denied the right to return those who have
maintained their public trust? That is why I have also
opposed term limits on presidents. Term limits dilute the
fundamental responsibility of citizenship to decide who will
govern.
Those favoring term limits seem to believe that experience
is a virtue in almost any profession except that of
legislator. Moving legislation is a tough, exacting task. It
requires not only a knowledge of issues but a keen judgment
of individuals and the ability to find areas of compromise on
widely varying positions. Experience will likely be needed
even more in the future, with the dizzying pace and
complexity of the world and the nature of governance in a $6
trillion economy. Even voters in states approving term limits
seem to acknowledge the value of experience. The voters in
the 14 states that imposed term limits also returned nearly
90% of the Members of Congress running for reelection who had
served longer than the limits the voters wanted to impose.
One unintended consequence of term limits is that by
decreasing the number of experienced legislators they
increase the power of legislative staff, lobbyists, and
bureaucrats. Power does not simply evaporate; it flows
somewhere else. Term limits would also tilt the balance of
the constitutional system even more in favor of the
executive. It is hard to imagine a greater advantage for a
president than to purge Congress of experienced legislators
who are specialists in issues, who understand the workings of
government, and who remember the problems of the past.
Some argue that Congress with a continuing flow of fresh
ideas would result in better government than that provided by
representatives with long tenure. The other argument is that
experience is an important characteristic for legislators.
Each viewpoint probably has some validity, but the best
solution is to allow the voters to determine the proper
balance between freshness and experience.
Congressional Change: A misperception about congressional
turnover underlies much of the term limits debate. Most
Americans believe that Congress has a fixed, long-standing
membership, when in fact turnover is quite rapid. 75% of
House members have been elected since 1980. 400 out of 435
House members have been elected since the Watergate break-in.
The 1992 elections produced 110 new Representatives, one
quarter of the membership. The 1994 elections are shaping up
to be a near repeat of 1992--retirements are close to the
1992 pace and many members are facing competitive races. The
odds are that when the 1994 elections are over, more than
half of the House will have been elected in the 1990s.
Conclusion: The frustrations with Congress that motivated
the term limits movement are understandable. Certainly
Congress must do a better job of solving the problems that
foster public anger and distrust, and some progress has been
made recently in ending legislative gridlock. In addition,
competitive elections are more important than arbitrary
limits on service. Giving priority to campaign finance
reforms and increased voter registration and turnout would
benefit and political process far more than a potentially
counterproductive change in our Constitution.
I believe we have to protect the fundamental right of the
voters to choose those who govern them. I think that term
limits, by weakening the power of the legislative branch,
injure the republic. The fight for term limitation distracts
attention from the search for answers to serious problems
facing the country.
____________________